ANZ-LOM is based on IEEE LOM, has 25 mandatory fields, and a number of recommended classification taxonomies which are relevant for the new Australian Curriculum for schools. These include Australian Curriculum content descriptions (for outcomes), and the controlled vocabulary School Online Thesaurus (ScOT) terms (for subject headings). The curriculum taxonomies are increasingly becoming machine-readable – so the semantic web is happening. See information on machine-readable Australian Curriculum at: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Technical/MachineReadable

There is currently the potential for confusion among the interested, and the uninterested (see an earlier paper for ALIA on ‘Metadata for the uninterested’), about the metadata-related acronyms: MLR and LRMI.

I describe the separate MLR and LRMI projects below, but after declaring my interests in both IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) through my working with DETLRM and ANZ-LOM application profiles; and MLR through my being on Standards Australia IT 19 committee which has input to ISO’s MLR, I think that learning resources may still require specialist metadata for their description, discovery and use.

Previous posts in this e-learning area have described the separate metadata standards of IEEE LOM and Dublin Core.

One of MLR’s aims is to harmonise both LOM and Dublin Core metadata, as it tries to enable both the ‘learning object’ aspects of LOM and the ‘entity-relationship model of the Semantic Web and the Dublin Core Abstract Model’ (HOEL and MASON (2011) p 6).

The Learning Resource Metadata Initiative is developing a common metadata framework for describing learning resources on the web. LRMI is supported by the search engines Google, Bing, and Yahoo; related to schema.org; uses the semantic web, and is supported by Creative Commons.

‘It is the hope of the LRMI leadership that the metadata schema developed by this project will be incorporated into Schema.org and become the de facto standard for tagging educational resources on the web.’

Thus we will have the common experience of internationally ratified standards opposed to ‘de-facto standards’ of the industry heavyweights.

That is, IEEE LOM, ANZ-LOM, Dublin Core, MLR etc, against LRMI. Who knows how it will end?

For more information contact me, or other members of the Standards Australia IT 19 committee, which deals with ICT and learning, education, training and research, and which has input to ISO’s MLR.

This paper by Phil Barker and Lorna M. Campbell provides an overview of specifications and standards for metadata relating to learning materials. The paper is structured to present first the currently established metadata schemas in use today (specifically the IEEE LOM and Dublin Core metadata), then to examine current developments and activities before looking at what might be the future challenges. The examination of current (2010) developments and activities highlights the increasingly recognized importance of metadata schema that describe what have in the past been thought of as secondary aspects of learning materials (for example who uses them and what for), and the importance of alternative approaches to structured metadata for resource description. PDF = http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/publicationFiles/2010/TICLMetadata/TICLpaper.MetadataForEducation_postref.pdf

On a related issue, there is now a reconstituted Standards Australia Information Technology (IT-019) committee with wider representation which considers these and other standards issues. More news after the next committee meeting.

What has happened with e-learning standards and metadata in recent times, and where are we heading? This paper by HOEL and MASON 2011 [PDF 8pp] provides a very readable summary of the last two decades’ activity in metadata, especially in the learning, education and training area.

The role of standards bodies in metadata is mentioned, and please note that we now have a reconstituted Standards Australia Information Technology (IT-019) committee with wider representation which considers these and other standards issues.

This is a major issue for developers of learning resources, and this summary provides many good points about planning for accessibility in projects. A subsequent article promises to look at the role of Information Architect in producing accessible websites.

Similar points about project management are made in the OptionKeys accessibility website at: http://www.cli.nsw.edu.au/optionkeys/ , especially under “Guidelines: Plan for accessibility” :

Mobile Web Application Best Practices

This W3C site : http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-mwabp-20101214/ about mobile best practices assumes that devices will have support for standard XHTML, JavaScript, and CSS capability. Specifically it focuses “on making use of advanced device capabilities to deliver the best possible experience on those devices that can support it” — as long as this still involves standards then it should be a valuable resource.

The W3C WAI has announced a Call for Review of updates to two supporting documents for Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) 2.0. Note that this is not an update to WCAG 2.0, which is a stable document, see: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ .

The supporting documents (W3C Notes) are very useful and practical documents which are updated periodically to reflect current practices and technologies. These draft updates include addition of techniques to help make PDFs more accessible.

The draft updates are available for review as Editors’ Drafts, and the changes are highlighted in tracked-changed versions at: